stated by the bill and those established by the evidence, might either incline the court to modify the relief or to grant no relief at all, the court, even though it sees that the granting or modified relief would be attended with considerable difficulty, will not support a demurrer. Ib. 12. The general rule is that the truth of material and relevant matters, set forth with requisite precision, are admitted by demurrer, but in a case of great magnitude, involving questions of grave and far-reaching im- portance, that rule will not be applied, and the case will be sent to is- sue and proofs. Ib.
13. The legislation of the State of Connecticut, in respect to the taxation of shares of stock in a local corporation, held by non-residents, which is set forth in the statement of facts, is not in conflict with paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Federal Constitution, or the Four- teenth Amendment to that Constitution. Travellers' Insurance Co. v. Connecticut, 364.
14. The court below erred in dismissing this action, for want of jurisdic- tion, as the right which it was claimed had been unlawfully invaded, was one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and although it has been held that, on error from a state court to this court, where the Federal question asserted to be contained in the record, is manifestly lacking all color of merit, the writ of error should be dis- missed, that doctrine relates to questions arising on writs of error from state courts, where, aside from the Federal status of the parties to the action, on the inherent nature of the Federal right which is sought to be vindicated, jurisdiction is to be determined by ascertaining whether the record raises a bona fide Federal question. Swafford v. Templeton,
See COAL MINES; INSURANCE, 1.
1. The Tulare irrigation district, in California, issued and sold its bonds for the purpose of constructing its irrigation works. The proceeds were used for that purpose by the corporation, and the works were by means thereof constructed. The corporation then refused to pay the bonds, and denied its liability on them upon the ground that it was never legally organized as a corporation, and hence had no legal right to issue any bonds. Held, on the authority of Douglas County Commissioners v. Bolles, 94 U. S. 104, that common honesty demanded that a debt thus incurred should be paid; and that there was nothing in the facts in this case to set aside the application of that principle; that if anything could constitute a de facto corporation the defendant is one and that, being thus a de facto corporation, none but the State can question its existence. Tulare Irrigation District v. Shepard, 1. 2. Under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court, the land- owner is estopped from setting up the defence of the want of notice, as against the plaintiff in this case. Ib.
3. That the State has power to forfeit the charter of a corporation for an
abuse of its priviliges, is recognized as law in Louisiana. New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 336.
4. In Louisiana a corporation is liable to be proceeded against for taking illegal rates by quo warranto to the suit of the State. Ib.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. The District and Circuit Courts of the United States are always open for the transaction of some business which may be transacted under the orders of the judge in his absence, and on such transaction rest the plaintiff's claims in this case, which the court sustain as business which could be transacted by the clerk in the absence of the judge, following the departmental construction of the statutes. United States v. Fin- nell, 236.
2. Of course if that construction were obviously or clearly wrong it would be the duty of the court to so adjudge; but if there simply be doubt as to the soundness of that construction, the action of the Government in conformity with it for many years should not be overruled except for cogent reasons. Ib.
The obligee in a bond which supersedes an order confirming a sale of real estate, and directing the immediate execution of a deed and delivery of possession thereof to the purchaser, is entitled, after that order has been affirmed on the appeal, to recover as damages for the breach of the obligation of the bond the value of the use and possession, that is to say in this case, the rents and profits of the real estate during the time the purchaser is kept out of the possession and use of the real estate by the supersedeas bond, and the appeal in which it was allowed. Woodworth v. Northwestern Life Ins. Co., 354.
1. The time at which a party appeals to a court of equity for relief affects largely the character of the relief which will be granted. New York City v. Pine, 93.
2. A failure to pursue statutory remedies is not always fatal to the rights of a party in possession, and if full and adequate compensation is made to the plaintiff, sometimes the possession of the defendant will not be disturbed. Ib.
3. A court of equity may take possession and finally end a controversy like the present by securing the payment of adequate compensation in lieu of a cessation of the trespass. Ib.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7.
In this case there is nothing whatever in the bill of exceptions to show that the evidence contained therein is all the evidence that was given on the trial, and the court cannot presume, for the purpose of reversing the judgment, that there was no evidence given upon which the jury might
rightfully have found the verdict which they did. Coffee Queen Mining Company, 495.
1. The classification of life and health insurance companies separately from fire, marine and inland insurance companies, and mutual benefit and relief organizations doing business through lodges and mutual benefit associations, made by the State of Texas in respect of insurance, is not so arbitrary and destitute of reasonable basis as to be obnoxious to con- stitutional objection. Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Mettler, 308. 2. In an action on a life insurance policy it is not necessary to prove the fact of death beyond a reasonable doubt. A verdict for the party in whose favor the weight of evidence preponderates will be sustained. Ib. 3. The inference of death may arise from disappearance under circum- stances inconsistent with a continuation of life. Ib.
4. The belief of the family of an assured that he is dead is not admissible on the trial of an action on a policy of insurance on his life as inde- pendent evidence of the fact of his death, but the entertainment of such belief may be proven as tending to show innocence of fraud. And, in this case, the evidence which was admitted cannot be presumed, the entire record considered, to have had any influence whatever on the verdict except from the point of view in which it was admissible. Ib. 5. No other objection urged constituted reversible error or requires partic- ular mention. Ib.
1. The question involved in this case upon the merits is, in substance, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alluvion caused by the recession of the Mississippi River to the extent of many hundred feet east of the point where it flowed in 1852, at the time when the plaintiff's prede- cessor took title to the property by virtue of a patent from the United States. The trial court held she was, and the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri held she was not. In the opinion of this court the case involves no Federal question, and it is dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Sweringen v. St. Louis, 38.
2. In an action of ejectment against private individuals, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court cannot be maintained on the ground that by aver- ments that plaintiffs were ousted in violation of the treaty of October 21, 1803, and of the Fifth Amendment, the provisions of which it was the duty of the Federal Government to observe, it appeared that the case arose under the Constitution, or laws, or treaties of the United States. Filhiol v. Maurice, 108.
3. The rule reiterated that this court has no jurisdiction under the third division of section 709 of the Revised Statutes unless the party seeking the writ of error has unmistakably invoked for the protection of an asserted right, title, privilege or immunity, the Constitution, or some treaty, statute, commission, or authority, of the United States. Mich- igan Sugar Company v. Michigan, 112.
4. Where a party, drawing in question in this court a state enactment as
invalid under the Constitution of the United States, or asserting that the final judgment of the highest court of a State denied to him a right or immunity under the Constitution of the United States, did not raise such question or specially set up or claim such right or immunity in the trial court, this court cannot review such final judgment and hold that the state judgment was unconstitutional, or that the right or im- munity so claimed had been denied by the highest court of the State, if that court did nothing more than decline to pass upon the Federal question because not raised in the trial court, as required by the state practice. Erie Railroad Company v. Purdy, 148.
5. If, upon examining the record, this court had found that a Federal question was properly raised, or that a Federal right or immunity was specially claimed in the trial court, then the jurisdiction of this court would not have been defeated by the mere failure of the highest court of the State to dispose of the question so raised, or to pass upon the right or immunity so claimed. Ib.
6. The defendant in error moved to dismiss the action on the ground that no Federal question was decided by the Supreme Court of Iowa. Held, that the motion should be overruled, as the plaintiff explicitly based his right of action on Rev. Stat. §§ 5197, 5198, and as the judgment of the trial court, and that of the Supreme Court of the State, denied such right, this court therefore has jurisdiction. Talbot v. Sioux City First National Bank, 172.
7. In these statutes relating to illegal interest, it is the interest charged, and not the interest to which a forfeiture might be enforced that the statute regards as illegal, and if interest greater than the legal rate is charged, it may be relinquished, and recovery had at the legal rate. Ib. 8. Matters within the pleadings in this case having been left undetermined by the court below, and the cause having been detained for the pur- pose of thereafter passing upon them, and for the entry of a further decree, the decree entered below was not final, and this court is without jurisdiction to pass upon it. Covington v. Covington First
9. If a bill be brought to enforce or set aside a contract, though such con- tract be connected with a patent, it is not a suit under the patent laws, and the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court can only be maintained upon the ground of diversity of citizenship. Excelsior Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 282.
10. Although the bill be an ordinary bill for the infringement of a patent, of which the Circuit Court would have jurisdiction, if the answer show that it is really a suit upon a contract the court should dismiss the bill. Ib. 11. Where a bill is filed by a licensee (the license being set up merely to show the title of the plaintiff to the patent) against the patentee and another party to whom the patentee has granted a conflicting license, the jurisdiction of the court is not ousted by reason of allegations in the answer that the plaintiff had forfeited all his rights under the license by failure to comply with its terms and conditions, by reason of which the license had been revoked by the patentee. Ib.
12. The authority of the Government in prescribing regulations in respect of transit being unqualified, and the existing regulations not open to constitutional objection, the court below could not interfere by habeas corpus with the collector's orders, and its ruling on an offer of evid- ence, the entire record considered, was not erroneous. Lee Gon Yung
13. In order to warrant the exercise by this court of jurisdiction over the judgments of state courts, there must be some fair ground for asserting the existence of a Federal question, and in the absence thereof a writ of error will be dismissed, although the claim of a Federal question was plainly set up; and where by the record it appears that such a claim, although set up, had no substance or foundation, the fact that it was raised was not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 336.
14. Upon a careful review of all questions, the court is of opinion that no Federal question exists in this record, and that the court is without jurisdiction in this case.
15. The original jurisdiction, vested by the Constitution in this court over controversies in which a State is a party, is not affected by the question whether the State is a party plaintiff or party defendant. Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 373.
16. A dispute as to the title to real estate is a question of a justiciable na- ture, and can properly be determined in a judicial proceeding. 1b. 17. The United States are to be taken, for the purposes of this case, as the real party in interest adverse to the State. Ib.
18. This court has jurisdiction of this controversy, and is called upon to determine the case on its merits. Ib.
19. Not only the technical rules of statutory construction, but also the general scope of the legislation in these matters, and the policy of the United States in respect to public schools, and also to Indians, concur in sustaining the contention of the Government that none of these ceded lands passed under the school grant to the State. Ib. 20. The court is of opinion that the claim of Minnesota to these lands cannot be sustained, and that the bill should be dismissed. Ib.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8.
1. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, sustaining the act of February 3, 1897, which provided that "section 4742 of Mansfield's Digest of the Laws of Arkansas, heretofore put in force in the Indian Territory, is hereby amended by adding to said section the following: "Provided that if the mortgagor is a non-resident of the Indian Terri- tory, the mortgage shall be recorded in the judicial district in which the property is situated at the time the mortgage is executed. All mortgages of personal property in the Indian Territory heretofore exe- cuted and recorded in the judicial district thereof in which the prop- erty was situated at the time they were executed are hereby validated," is sound as applicable to this case. McFaddin v. Evans-Snider-Buel Co., 505.
« AnteriorContinuar » |